I had to look at them again today, click here. Notice that when people actually put their own name, the discussion is pretty interesting and helpful. The Telegram really needs to require people to register in order to comment.
One comment I particurlarly like from Doug Cutler:
I own commercial real estate in Worcester as well as some of the surrounding towns. I can tell you from firsthand experience that businesses will choose the lower tax location outside of Worcester, unless they have some overriding attachment to Worcester. For example, a very small business owner who rents or owns 1000 square feet of space in the city of Worcester might pay $2.50 to $3.00 per square foot in taxes.
This is in addition to his rent or mortgage, and other expenses. That translates to $2500 to $3000 every year. That may be 2, 3 or 4 times what they would pay for the same space in some of the towns around Worcester. That is a significant sum and pushes many business owners, and the jobs they provide, outside the city. The costs for larger companies with greater numbers of employees is significantly higher.
As we push more businesses out of the city, the value of our property goes down. The net long-term effect is probably to reduce the overall taxes collected. In other words, taxing businesses at a significantly higher rate than the surrounding towns, ultimately costs the city more than it produces in taxes for the city.
Drink and dine your way through Chicago - Winding up in the Windy City? We hope you packed your appetite! The number of amazing restaurants in Chicago amounts to way more food than you could eat ...
11 hours ago